Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Marine Biology
9.1 weeks
27.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
4
Accepted
Motivation: Although the process took an extended amount of time, I was happy with the way that the manuscript was handled. Incorporating reviewers' suggestions required a lot of work but were ultimately helpful and substantially improved my manuscript.
Global Ecology and Biogeography
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Manuscript was not considered fit for the journal.
ACS Macro Letters
2.6 weeks
2.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
4
Accepted
Journal of Behavioral Decision Making
n/a
n/a
0 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Journal of Aging Studies
5.4 weeks
7.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: the process was extremely fast, and both reviewers and editor were highly professional.
Nature Communications
6.4 weeks
14.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
2
Rejected
Motivation: Since there was a contradiction between reviewers, we expected editors to solicit additional opinion about the manuscript from practicing scientists. They did not and eventually took a decision after discussing with other editorial colleagues.
Journal of Empirical Finance
n/a
n/a
8 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: We literally have paid for nothing by submitting to the Journal of Empirical Finance. I have the impression that the editor in charge of my paper has not even read it, as there was just a copy-pasted message suggesting that our paper was not fit for the readership of the journal. I am aware that high desk rejection rates are common in top journals, but what bothers are two issues: 1) not any feedback at all and 2) not even recommending for the article transfer service (ATS), which connecting 1 and 2, passes the impression of our work not being read at all. After paying high submission fees, a minor feedback would be expected if the work was minimaly evaluated.
Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems
8.1 weeks
8.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Drawn back
Journal of Cleaner Production
8.6 weeks
10.4 weeks
n/a
4 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Transfer of the manuscript from the server platform to the editor took about 1-2 days. Forwaring or decisions of the editor were done within 1 day.
Journal of Chemical Physics
8.1 weeks
8.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
0
2
Accepted
Motivation: We got a single short review asking us to shorten the manuscript and write a more focused discussion. It was clear that the reviewer had not read the paper in detail. For example, he/she identified several points made in the manuscript as being interesting. Half of these were actually just citing/explaining/discussing other people's work. Overall it was a very poor review. We resubmitting after shortening the manuscript by about 10% and the editor accepted it without further review.
Journal of Chemical Physics
4.9 weeks
9.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
Motivation: The reviewers made useful comments. One recommended a minor revision and the other a rejection. The editor asked us to re-submit the paper. In the end, one of the reviewers disagreed with a couple of our claims in the manuscript but he was OK with it being published. I was very happy with the editor and reviewers overall.
Scientific Reports
4.3 weeks
7.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
3
Accepted
New Journal of Chemistry
4.3 weeks
5.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Applied Animal Behaviour Science
9.6 weeks
9.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
3
Rejected
Motivation: Reviewers raised some valid concerns, the manuscript was improved by their comments.
Nature Energy
8.4 weeks
17.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
0
Drawn back
Motivation: The first round of review was already frustrating. One of the reviewer gave good feedback with a lot of thoughts on improvement and also some more tricky questions that we addressed in the next version of the manuscript. The other reviewer gave no feedback, just an "outright reject" without any reasoning. When resubmitting the manuscript, we asked for another reviewer as it was obvious that the second reviewer just wanted to block the publication in general. The editor refused to search for another reviewer and said we should "convince" him/her.
After another two months without any reply from the second reviewer (the first one accepted the manuscript in its revised version) we decided to withdraw the manuscript and resubmit it to another journal. It was accepted there after 6 weeks with 7 (!) really positive reviewer feedbacks. We will never submit anything to Nature Energy again.
Molecular Biology and Evolution
6.5 weeks
8.5 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Mobile DNA
3.7 weeks
4.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
Neuropsychologia
16.4 weeks
23.6 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
3
Accepted
Motivation: I found the revision process too long, but the revisions improved the ms.
Applied Soft Computing
n/a
n/a
10 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Even though an editor from another, related journal (Expert Systems with Applications) proposed to transfer the manuscript to this journal for reasons of fit, the editor of ASC rejected it straight away because it was deemed out of scope for the journal.
Expert Systems with Applications
n/a
n/a
9 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Cognitive Science
n/a
n/a
13 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Behavior Research Methods
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The main reason for rejection given by the editor was that the manuscript primarly considered a validation study, and that BRM tends not to publish validation studies.
Appetite
n/a
n/a
0 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Social Policy and Administration
n/a
n/a
28 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Gender Issues
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Men and Masculinities
10.3 weeks
44.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Accepted
Genome Biology and Evolution
3.5 weeks
8.5 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Science of the Total Environment
5.0 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
Biological Psychiatry
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Construction Management and Economics
7.6 weeks
13.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
Motivation: One review was of good quality, constructive and definitely improved the manuscript. The other review was extensive and perceived as aggressive and abusive with words being used like nonsensical, clumsy, incorrect, rudimentary, should not be accepted, too elementary, too vague. Some reviewers apparently lack sensitivity for what ever reasons I can only guess. I just want to mention that these types of reviews are unfair and hurt. In the end the editor handled this review process correctly but in my opinion the editor should have taken action earlier in the process, whether by editing this review before sending it our or in doubt of the quality of the manuscript, sending the manuscript to another reviewer.
Social Science and Medicine
10.9 weeks
11.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: I am very happy with the review process and thankful for the immense effort put into the manuscript by the reviewers and Editor. I particularly thank the Editor for being helpful and encouraging, this makes a great difference for young researchers. SS&M follows a rigorous review process and provides a platform for health researchers who are from interdisciplinary disciplines.
Journal of Neuroscience
6.7 weeks
6.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
1
2
Rejected
Motivation: The reviewers did not appear to be experts on the topic. The comments were not at all harsh, but showed lack of knowledge of both the state of the art and the terminology used in the field.

I also did not really appreciate the suggestion to revise the manuscript and send it to their much more expensive "sister" journal.
Environmental Microbiology
11.4 weeks
15.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
4
Accepted
European Journal of International Relations
18.0 weeks
18.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
3
Rejected
Motivation: The editors explained the delayed decision, because of the need for a third reviewer. They shortly summarized the different positions and key arguments, based on which they decided to reject the paper. They did this in a constructive way.
Ecology
8.9 weeks
12.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
3
Accepted
Motivation: The reviews were brief (~1 paragraph) and unhelpful, but the associate editor gave extensive comments that were helpful and appreciated, I think because s/he saw the reviews as insufficient. 3 months of the total time was my tardiness in getting revisions back. Positive experience overall.
International Mathematics Research Notices
16.1 weeks
16.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
Journal of the London Mathematical Society
24.1 weeks
24.1 weeks
n/a
1 reports
2
3
Rejected
Advances in Mathematics
62.4 weeks
62.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
2
Rejected
Motivation: A long time was taken (more than a year). No mistakes were found. No reason was given for rejection and reviews did not provide an opinion of the scientific value of the paper.
Journal of Research in Personality
n/a
n/a
35 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The editor provided a very fair rationale for the rejection and offered some helpful feedback. That said, it is extremely unfortunate that it took five weeks to provide a simple desk rejection. It should not take 5 weeks for an editor to read a paper, reject it, and offer one or two sentences of feedback.
Methods in Ecology and Evolution
6.6 weeks
6.6 weeks
n/a
4 reports
3
5
Rejected
Motivation: The manuscript was processed very quickly and efficiently. The editor gave a detailed reply justifying why he rejected the paper and did encourage us to resubmit the paper if we decided to expand it into a larger research paper.